Talk:Musashi/@comment-25336329-20150410062835/@comment-25336329-20150412072913
> Bad English? We'll have to disagree on what constitutes that then unless we want to compare English qualifications & delve into style guides. At least it didn't feel that natural to me, so that's what was bothering me. =/ > 1- Sure, a couple spaces could have been missed. Other than that, why does one order sound better than another? Well actually, if this were to be text written in my language (Finnish), I wouldn't have any problem with this, writing like you did is pretty common. But the thing is, I've never seen anyone writing like that in English, so it just feels a bit out of place. So yeah, it's a matter of preference with this one. But I'm sticking with the spacing thing as a fact. > 2 and 3 Preferences. Preferences everywhere. > 4- Someone will have to look that up. With the next best alternative, it might as well not be mentioned. ...No, I think this is a fact that needs to be addressed one way or another, a ship does not simply take that much damage and stay afloat for that long. > The separation eases skimming. Yes, I agree, separation eases skimming when it comes to long texts, helping find the information you're looking for. However, I believe this is not a valid excuse in this case, when there's so little amount of text to skim. Or you know what, let's look it like this: * Due to the discovery of Musashi's wreck, the update following the discovery included dedicated furniture, and her construction drop-rate was reportedly increased for the occasion. However, her drop-rate was reverted back to normal after two weeks. This^ is how I want it to look like. I mean, it's just two sentences, why should there be a need to separate them? And this is how it was before my grammatical tweaks, and after my previous overall tweaks were reverted: * Due to the discovery of Musashi's wreck, the March 13th, 2015 update included dedicated furniture & a slight construction drop-rate increase. ** The drop-rate was reverted in the March 27th, 2015 update. I know it's just my preference, but I really think that the structure I'd have in mind would be way easier to read than what this page has now. > The notes meant that I disagreed with converting bullets into paragraphs & otherwise longer sentences in a different vision of readable. I thought it might've been something along those lines, but seriously, I got an impression that the note and the actual change were conflicting quite considerably. =__= > As for the latest edit, the relevance of most of the grammar & other changes still aren't clear to me. ...Before I'm going to say anything about this one, I'd like to know what your native language is. That is all. > What's the 'point of her construction drop-rate was reportedly increased when the bullet mentioning it's reduced in the following update is retained? Well, we know that it was the tweet of the developers that claimed this, but there's not really any way for us to actually verify that, so that's why I added "reportedly" in this sentence. But if the fact that I left the the following sentence untouched by that fact, I can go and edit it in if you want. =/ > Why should the dates be removed? Since updates are still linked, I felt that dates wouldn't be that relevant to be mentioned here. And now whoever has to read this now doesn't need to compare the dates between Notes and Trivia to come up with the connection, as to why 13th of March in particular added this reported increase.